Saturday | 5 October 2024 | Reg No- 06
বাংলা
   
Saturday | 5 October 2024 | Epaper
BREAKING: ● Sailor dies after oil tanker catches fire in Ctg      ● Ex-president Badruddoza Chowdhury passes away      ● Killing during students' movement: 9 bodies to be exhumed in Sylhet      ● Malaysian prime minister leaves Dhaka for home      ● CA seeks Malaysian support for Bangladesh to be ASEAN dialogue partner      ● Malaysian PM assures of attention to 18,000 Bangladesh workers       ● Bid to kill Khaleda Zia: Sheikh Hasina among 113 sued      

How far will Israel comply with the ICJ ruling?

Published : Monday, 19 February, 2024 at 12:00 AM  Count : 438
Abu Sufian
The International Court of Justice issued its interim ruling against Israel on January 26 in the case filed by South Africa on December 29, 2023, accusing Israel of committing violations of the Genocide Convention as it waged war against Hamas, causing massive devastation in the Gaza Strip through unjustified aerial bombardment, and killing civilians. South Africa sought that Israel suspend operations in and against Gaza, including calling for a ceasefire immediately to preserve the respective rights of either party in accordance with Article 41 of the ICJ statute. The court did not rule on calling for a ceasefire but issued six provisional measures to be taken, excluding the application of Israel to throw out the allegations brought against it.

South Africa accused Israel of responding disproportionately as a course of retaliation for Hamass attack, striking on Gaza that led to unprecedented destruction of residential, commercial, religious, and educational buildings, and conducting genocide inhumanely. As a response to the allegation of killing civilians, Israeli solicitors maintained that they recognized it as undesirable, regrettable, but inevitable because they had trouble identifying Hamass sites. South Africa contended, condemning the state of Israel, the ongoing military aggression bringing up the apple of discord of the war, while Israel was arguing that they neither commenced it nor wanted it. Above all, they pretend, no matter how much civilians are being affected, disregarding international laws of war, to devastate Hamas allegation of militancy.

The International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take all measures possible to prevent the commission of all acts under Article II of the Genocide Convention. The ruling prohibited killing civilians, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. Besides, Israel must prevent and punish the incitement of genocide and facilitate humanitarian assistance in the Gaza Strip. The court also ordered that Israel submit a report to the ICJ on all measures taken to uphold the provisional measures ordered by the ICJ within one month.

But a question arises as to how much an ICJ ruling would be efficient in mitigating the degree of Israeli invasion in the Gaza Strip. Israel endeavors to comply with the obligations, by the skin of its teeth, incumbent upon it by the ICJ ruling, which is evident from the precedent. The construction of the Israel Separation Wall was started in 2002 at the height of the Second Intifada, denoting it as a precautionary measure against terrorism. The wall, a mechanism to annex Palestinian territory, deprived the residents of moving at large, communicating with their kiths and kin, and harvesting their agricultural land within the national territory.

Besides having contentious jurisdiction, the ICJ may deliver an advisory opinion when it is expedient for the time being. In 2004, the court, as an application of its advisory jurisdiction, opined that, being illegal, the construction of the Israel Separation Wall should be undermined and compensation for damages caused by the procedural effect should be paid. Whereas the order was non-binding, after a month of such a ruling, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly, demanding its compliance by Israel. But the order has not materialized as of today, which is the consequence of the continuing culture of impunity that exempts Israel from punishment for its delinquency. Furthermore, the prolonged inhuman treatment by Israel, the illegal settlement in the West Bank, and the ongoing barbaric invasion compel us to presume that Israel may not go along with the obligations conferred upon it.

This suspicion of the probability of disrespecting the ICJ ruling has become more visible after the immediate response of Netanyahu to the judgment. He called the ruling "outrageous" and also added that Israel has the right to defend itself, which means they are not confessing their wrongdoings and would continue the devastation. One of the signs of the presumption is that the aerial bombardment has not been terminated yet.

As it is mentioned in the ICJ statute, in a contentious case, a party is bound to go along with its obligations conferred upon it by the judgment if it makes the court competent by accepting the jurisdiction of it by a treaty or an application. If a party responsible does not discharge the obligations after the ICJ ruling, it is transitioned into the subject matter of the Security Council. The Security Council, after the delegation of power to resolve a dispute from the ICJ before it, takes effective measures to substantialize the order. It may resolve the dispute by pacific or coercive means. With a view to settling an issue, the Council may take military action with adequate armaments, though it is not incidental.

Israel, thus, to the extent of being responsible for causing genocide by the judgment, is obliged to act up to the directions. In the event of ignoring the order, the power of the resolution shall be handed over to the Security Council. Palestinians might not be optimistic about having the pacific assistance of the Security Council, let alone military patrons.

Though there is an amalgamation of diplomatic voices against the desperate  escalation of the IDF, Israel cares for no one. The states that declared "unwavering support" for Israel are not as inspiring as they usually are now. Surprisingly, the Foreign Office Minister of the UK stated that they recognize Palestine. The US sanctioned four settlers in the West Bank; Antony Blinken tries to negotiate the dispute. That is how Israel is in trouble directing the military operation in Gaza, but it still continues.

Netaniyahu puts up with the verbal criticisms against Israel since no praiseworthy measures are imposed to resist barbarism. The most regrettable matter is that the ICJ ordered six provisional measures, but those might not come into force without a ceasefire; that was not taken into account. Algeria has been able to perceive the reason why it has drafted a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire. But the US opposes it because it says it would only benefit the Palestinian militant group. It is, therefore, to be stated that the pacific role of settlement by the Security Council is also questionable. They are more anxious for Hamass upgrade than for the unjustified deaths of children and women. The tendency to undermine Hamas instead of providing relief in the serious humanitarian crisis and gross violence against human rights paves the way for Israels exemption from punishment. Israel would, therefore, not be obstructed by the notorious operations avoiding the ICJ ruling.People are ambitious to witness, for the sake of preventing further genocide, through a pacific settlement, a conspicuous reflection of the ICJ ruling in no time. But Israel may not conform to the order by emerging hostage issues or by aiming at nipping Hamass possibility of being regional power in the bud.

The writer is a student, Dept. of Law (4thyear), Noakhali Science and Technology University



LATEST NEWS
MOST READ
Also read
Is a full-scale war in Middle East imminent?  
How UN stays relevant by prolonging ME crisis
Unchanging value of literature in the age of algorithms
Teachers should focus on social justice in classrooms
Our fiscal transparency in the report of USA
Joviality in self exploration
The observance of the world teacher's day in the new light
Natural gas crisis in Bangladesh: Is LNG the only solution?
Editor : Iqbal Sobhan Chowdhury
Published by the Editor on behalf of the Observer Ltd. from Globe Printers, 24/A, New Eskaton Road, Ramna, Dhaka.
Editorial, News and Commercial Offices : Aziz Bhaban (2nd floor), 93, Motijheel C/A, Dhaka-1000.
Phone: PABX- 41053001-06; Online: 41053014; Advertisement: 41053012.
E-mail: info©dailyobserverbd.com, news©dailyobserverbd.com, advertisement©dailyobserverbd.com, For Online Edition: mailobserverbd©gmail.com
🔝